Susilo questions separation of army and police roles

JAKARTA (JP): Coordinating Minister for Political, Social and Security Affairs Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on Tuesday questioned the separation of the concept of security and defense, and called for a clearer view than the one which currently defines the first as being the realm of the police and the second that of the military.

In his keynote address at a one-day seminar held at Indonesian Military (TNI) headquarters in Cilangkap, East Jakarta, Susilo lamented the oversimplification of the concept which innately assumes that the military thus has no role in security matters.

"I see that there is a simplification in that when we talk about defense then its the TNI's business, while security is for the police," he said.

Susilo argued that under military discipline there was no such seperation as both security and defense came under the same roof.

Indonesia has traditionally adopted a distinctive viewpoint by which it defines "security and defense".

In the past, such a definition did not ignite too much debate as both were placed under the stewardship of the military which comprised the three armed forces and the police.

However, with the advent of the reform era the police has been separated from the military and has been charged with handling domestic security.

Thus, the military cannot now indiscriminately intervene in handling domestic security situations.

While Susilo did not directly reject the current arrangement, he felt there remained many gray areas which needed clearer delineation.

He noted People's Consultative Assembly Decree No VII/2000 which states that the TNI, as an instrument of the state, has the primary task of maintaining national sovereignty and the unity of the state.

He added that in Article 4 of the Decree, there were three additional roles assigned to the TNI: conducting humanitarian civic missions, assisting the National Police in its security duties and participating in United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Susilo further noted that "if we return to military discipline, then everything is security."

"In security, there is external defense and internal security."

"Perhaps, what should be formulated as security would be more appropriately termed internal security," Susilo remarked.

He further suggested that internal security itself be broken down further into maintenance of law and order, counterinsurgency, and fighting armed rebellion.

It is these areas, according to Susilo, which must be clearly synthesized, in that does defense, which is the TNI's domain, only encompass external defense?

"If that's what the people demand, then fine!" Susilo asserted.

"As long as we fully understanding how to position these two roles in order to keep everything synchronized...If not, then neither will be optimal in carrying out their duties."

Susilo noted that in reality there remained ambiguous areas in which the military was interjected and often prescribed to function in a police-like role while they should be adopting a more combative stance due to the strength of the threat they faced.

On the other hand, the police have to face combat situations which they are not trained for.

"Is it fair for us to place such a heavy burden on the police whereby they have to face armed threats?"

"We have to position this in the correct manner, the deployment and employment of our police and military including what kind of arrangements we develop," he said.

One specific example he brought up was the situation in Aceh.

He asked whether the situation was an internal security threat, a lawless state, a state of social unrest or whether it had entered the area of threatening the integrity of the state.

"Who makes such an assessment?"

Susilo underlined that the phenomena in the field must be approached in a serious fashion.

"Don't assign the TNI or police to an erroneous (unsuitable) task. Don't encumber soldiers on the field with an overheavy burden," he asserted.

"Don't spread confusion."(02)